Exposure–Response Relationship of Tranexamic Acid in Cardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether high-dose regimens of tranexamic acid in cardiac surgery (total dose, 80 to 100 mg/kg) confer a clinical advantage over low-dose regimens (total dose, approximately 20 mg/kg), particularly as tranexamic acid-associated seizure may be dose-related. The authors' aim was to characterize the exposure-response relationship of this drug. METHODS: Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of intravenous tranexamic acid in adult patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass surgery. Observational studies were added for seizure assessment. Tranexamic acid concentrations were predicted in each arm of each study using a population pharmacokinetic model. The exposure-response relationship was evaluated by performing a model-based meta-analysis using nonlinear mixed-effect models. RESULTS: Sixty-four randomized controlled trials and 18 observational studies (49,817 patients) were included. Seventy-three different regimens of tranexamic acid were identified, with the total dose administered ranging from 5.5 mg/kg to 20 g. The maximum effect of tranexamic acid for postoperative blood loss reduction was 40% (95% credible interval, 34 to 47%), and the EC50 was 5.6 mg/l (95% credible interval, 0.7 to 11 mg/l). Exposure values with low-dose regimens approached the 80% effective concentration, whereas with high-dose regimens, they exceeded the 90% effective concentration. The predicted cumulative blood loss up to 48 h postsurgery differed by 58 ml between the two regimens, and the absolute difference in erythrocyte transfusion rate was 2%. Compared to no tranexamic acid, low-dose and high-dose regimens increased the risk of seizure by 1.2-fold and 2-fold, respectively. However, the absolute risk increase was only clinically meaningful in the context of prolonged open-chamber surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In cardiopulmonary bypass surgery, low-dose tranexamic acid seems to be an appropriate regimen for reducing bleeding outcomes. This meta-analysis has to be interpreted with caution because the results are observational and dependent on the lack of bias of the predicted tranexamic acid exposures and the quality of the included studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.050 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".